Quote from: Elliot WilenLook at the example. Or think about the dungeon scene from Pulp Fiction. Why does Butch go back and save Marcellus Wallace? Is it for the challenge?

Look, if you're only interested in rolling dice & kicking ass, or working out the perfect infiltration plan--you can certainly do those things in an RPG. Basically you just need a few good reasons, like "Orcs are bad", or "Here's your mission, Agent Smith." But that's not the only thing on the menu...if you like, you can also be Yojimbo (or The Man with No Name) striding into town, deciding who you like and who you don't, and then taking action based on your own motivations. That's fun, too.

No, because, as Jimbob would tell us: Yojimbo is the penultimate Loner Badarse, and that's all badwrongfun...

I'm a devoted follower of the spaghetti western school of roleplaying.

Butch went back to save Marcellus because he was pissed.

I see that happen in D&D all the time though.

In my current weekly group, the players left the main campaign plotline-- completely derailed it in fact-- in order to kill the dragon that had laid waste to one of the PCs hometowns. It was a great twist and completely unexpected. They were trying to decide what to do next, and one of the players said "You know, that dragon really pissed me off. You guys want to go back and kill it? I know it's kinda out of the way..."

And everyone said hell yeah, and they got all loaded up on dragonbane arrows and ass-whupping juice and did the thing. Purely for spite.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook at the example. Or think about the dungeon scene from Pulp Fiction. Why does Butch go back and save Marcellus Wallace? Is it for the challenge?

Look, if you're only interested in rolling dice & kicking ass, or working out the perfect infiltration plan--you can certainly do those things in an RPG. Basically you just need a few good reasons, like "Orcs are bad", or "Here's your mission, Agent Smith." But that's not the only thing on the menu...if you like, you can also be Yojimbo (or The Man with No Name) striding into town, deciding who you like and who you don't, and then taking action based on your own motivations. That's fun, too.

Elliot, I love ya.  So I won't harp too much on your use of the word "only."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenD&D is the king of intuitive rewards.

At base, you find the challenging encounter.  You kick it's ever-lovin' ass.  You get the Xp and the loot.  

Yep. For a lot of my players kicking ass = interesting roleplaying with NPCs. Kicking ass means outsmarting an adversary in the king's court. It means rallying the people to your cause, it means figuring out the riddle of the mummy.

By kicking ass like this, my players get rewarded with XP (and sometimes loot).

It's pretty intuitive for me.

I don't know if the DMG specifically mentions it or if it is "technically" a spelled-out part of the game, but I know that's how it works for me, intuitively.

I don't get those people who have problems with the D&D reward system - I don't quite see where they are coming from. If a player does something good, they get a reward. Simple.

Quote from: GoOrangeI don't get those people who have problems with the D&D reward system - I don't quite see where they are coming from. If a player does something good, they get a reward. Simple.

That's simple, and works fine. It's when designers attempt to tell me what my ropleplaying goals should be that I get testy. They do this by saying "If you entertain the other players, you get a reward." or "If you use the character's drives and passions, you get a reward." If you don't hew to the designer's idea of what's important, your character falls behind and become a drag on the other PCs. I prefer that if actions are to be rewarded, the definitions of what actions are rewarded should be determined by the group itself or the GM. Actually, ideally, I think good play should be its own reward, and character advancement should be something truly neutraal, like showing up and participating.

-clash

Added: Actually, I have no big problem with the D&D reward system, as it's fairly neutral, and the GM/Group can define it. My problems with D&D are unrelated to the reward system, and are purely matters of taste.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLook at the example. Or think about the dungeon scene from Pulp Fiction. Why does Butch go back and save Marcellus Wallace? Is it for the challenge?

Because of internal conflict.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut that's not the only thing on the menu...

I'm not sure why you feel this has anything to do with hack 'n' slash or that folks are suggesting that "rolling dice & kicking ass, or working out the perfect infiltration plan" is the only thing on the menu.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen...you can also be Yojimbo (or The Man with No Name) striding into town, deciding who you like and who you don't, and then taking action based on your own motivations. That's fun, too.

And what motivates him to act at all? Why is he walking down the street? Why is he making these sorts of decisions? Answer: Conflict.

Seanchai

I don't think "internal conflict" is the right word for why Butch does what he does. When Butch thinks about leaving or going back, that's an internal conflict. When he decides to go back, that resolves the internal conflict.

The reason he decides to go back, is that he decides the dungeon crew is evil far beyond the human conflict between him and Marcellus. He'd been ready to kill Marcellus before (and vice versa) but their experience in the dungeon reset all that.

If you're playing Butch in an RPG, you can decide that. Or you can smirk and grimly decide to leave Marcellus to his fate.

The point here is that I enjoy having that power or freedom: to decide what to do, and what it's worth risking to do it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't think "internal conflict" is the right word for why Butch does what he does. When Butch thinks about leaving or going back, that's an internal conflict. When he decides to go back, that resolves the internal conflict.

The confict was still there, regardless.

Conflict is at the heart of almost any action worth describing in an RPG - even if it's just the planning and shopping phases of preparation for a dungeon-crawl, it occurs because there is conflict of some kind.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe confict was still there, regardless.

Conflict is at the heart of almost any action worth describing in an RPG - even if it's just the planning and shopping phases of preparation for a dungeon-crawl, it occurs because there is conflict of some kind.

Conflict of any kind is the core of any interesting fiction period, whether it's an RPG session, a TV show, a book, or a movie.  

That's just kinda basic lit class stuff there really, I'm surprised it's being argued against with such determination.

It is not being argued against, certainly not by me. What I'm arguing against is the idea that RPGs are all about overcoming obstacles. The person who originally uttered that claim in the thread agrees with me, but somehow Seanchai disagrees.

If some sort of verbal gymnastics gets the reader to "dealing with internal conflict is a kind of 'overcoming obstacles'", then I'm done.

If not, my counterexample is that I hate it when the GM assumes I'm going to give a damn about whatever problem or mystery he throws out, just because that's "the adventure". I'm also not too keen on the idea of "hook the PC by kidnapping his dependent". And these aren't merely cosmetic issues of the GM being unimaginative. Rather it's the fact that I'm not being given a chance to make decisions outside a fairly low-level, instrumental, tactical domain. I'm at least as interested in making strategic decisions and "value" decisions. IMO, having those decisions without a counterpoint of challenge is kind of fatuous (a game of "value" decisions without consequence is a dressed up form of Scruples), but to leave them out altogether is to miss out on one of the main attractions of RPGs, for me at least.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point here is that I enjoy having that power or freedom: to decide what to do, and what it's worth risking to do it.

That might be your point, but it's not the topic at hand. We're not discussing taking freedoms away from players. We're talking about reward systems and, in one corner, whether or not all games have obstacles/conflict.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf some sort of verbal gymnastics gets the reader to "dealing with internal conflict is a kind of 'overcoming obstacles'", then I'm done.

A conflict is a difference between reality and desire. I want a donut. There are no donuts in the house. Conflict. I don't want to die. People are shooting at me. Conflict.

It seems to me that an obstacle is essentially a conflict.

When there's no conflict, there's no action or additional action. I want a donut. I am a eating donut. I don't have to do anything. I don't want to die. I'm in no danger of dying from anything in the environment. I can comfortably sit on my fat ass.

Thus if characters are in motion - physically, verbally, internally - there's a reason for it. They want to close the difference between reality and desire. There's conflict.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneConflict of any kind is the core of any interesting fiction period, whether it's an RPG session, a TV show, a book, or a movie.

Not conflict, tension.

Things like spilling soda on your date, or wondering if your bodyguard is about to betray you.

And come to think of it, all the reward systems I like build tension in some way, like D&D's HP and CoC's Sanity, as opposed to resolve conflict or increase status.

Quote from: SeanchaiThat might be your point, but it's not the topic at hand. We're not discussing taking freedoms away from players. We're talking about reward systems and, in one corner, whether or not all games have obstacles/conflict.

Really?

The question that's dominated this thread is the benefit of seeing D&D's system of giving XP for overcoming obstacles as a "reward system" that guides play.

My argument, via the back & forth between OHT and Levi, is that:

a) If you apply that notion to older versions of D&D, you incorrectly reach the reductionist conclusion that the game is "all about overcoming obstacles".

b) If the notion is strongly reinforced in 3.x, then the game is certainly more focused, but frankly of less interest to me (and I believe I'm not alone) because I don't play RPGs just to "overcome obstacles". At least, not always.

The idea that RPGs are all about overcoming obstacles, being "rewarded" by leveling up, and then facing greater obstacles is found in some styles of play, but not all. Basically, when you have a group that focuses strongly on character builds for maximum efficiency in combat, and then reinforces decisions that are based on optimising XP gain, you're in one of those styles. If the group takes an interest in a wider focus, or shifts it entirely, to cover interactions that can't be construed in any way in terms of "optimisation"--like deciding to help some NPC not because of the XP, or because they're on the stronger side or can otherwise help you become more "powerful", but because you like that person or maybe dislike their enemy, then you've got a style of play that isn't "all about overcoming obstacles". That is, part of the attraction and enjoyment is derived from an entirely distinct aspect of RPGs.

Does anyone else besides Seanchai have a problem with what I'm expressing here?